This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Fri Nov 18 17:34:20 CET 2005
On 18 nov 2005, at 17.13, Randy Bush wrote: >>> RIPE NCC is known to be very reasonable towards transit networks, >>> and I could bet good money you could get an allocation without a >>> hitch. >>> >> So what you say is "keep the current rule as the NCC will disobey it >> anyway". Why can't we just fix the broken policy.... >> > > how much should policy be twisted to cover up broken/incomplete > technology? the need will be continual and infinite. You know Randy, you don't HAVE to do v6. You can stay at v4...:-) - kurtis -
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]